Leftists believe George W. Bush's unheeded warning that "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was (obviously) treason, while FDR's ignorance of the (fore) warning that Japan was determined to attack:

On Monday, November 24, 1941, only 13 days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Henry L. Stimson, Roosevelt’s secretary of War, recorded in his diary a meeting with Roosevelt:

He brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps (as soon as) next Monday [December 1], for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.

On Nov. 25, Secretary of State Cordell Hull demanded that Japan withdraw from China. The following day Hull wrote this: “The matter is now in the hands of the Army and the Navy.”

Four days later, on December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked: 2,403 people died, eight battleships were sunk or damaged, and 188 airplanes were destroyed.

Goes down in "history" as:

No one in high authority in Washington seems to have believed that the Japanese were either strong enough or foolhardy enough to strike Hawaii.

As usual, I am virtually alone in equating these two episodes as glaring examples of messianic warmongering Presidents allowing Americans to suffer so that their aspirations to go down in history as a "War President" could be realized. There are your REAL "despicables…"

Hello? When you’re “virtually alone” in making a point, as you admitted you are, it ain’t just me you’re opposing.

;-)

Click to expand...

And I'm really quite comfortable with that. The vast majority of people, on both the left and the right get their information from biased sources, and do not intellectually challenge what they are being told (it's called "confirmation bias," and you are one of the worst with it). The reason I am so correct on so many issues, is precisely because I don't have fealty toward either side.

And I'm really quite comfortable with that. The vast majority of people, on both the left and the right get their information from biased sources, and do not intellectually challenge what they are being told (it's called "confirmation bias," and you are one of the worst with it). The reason I am so correct on so many issues, is precisely because I don't have fealty toward either side.

Leftists believe George W. Bush's unheeded warning that "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was (obviously) treason, while FDR's ignorance of the (fore) warning that Japan was determined to attack:

On Monday, November 24, 1941, only 13 days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Henry L. Stimson, Roosevelt’s secretary of War, recorded in his diary a meeting with Roosevelt:

He brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps (as soon as) next Monday [December 1], for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.

On Nov. 25, Secretary of State Cordell Hull demanded that Japan withdraw from China. The following day Hull wrote this: “The matter is now in the hands of the Army and the Navy.”

Four days later, on December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked: 2,403 people died, eight battleships were sunk or damaged, and 188 airplanes were destroyed.

Goes down in "history" as:

No one in high authority in Washington seems to have believed that the Japanese were either strong enough or foolhardy enough to strike Hawaii.

As usual, I am virtually alone in equating these two episodes as glaring examples of messianic warmongering Presidents allowing Americans to suffer so that their aspirations to go down in history as a "War President" could be realized. There are your REAL "despicables…"

War criminals, the both of them...

Click to expand...

Think false flags. Each served it's purpose and provided us with the public support that was needed to allow us to get into the wars that we wanted to get into.

Think false flags. Each served it's purpose and provided us with the public support that was needed to allow us to get into the wars that we wanted to get into.

Click to expand...

Try using your head....What would the difference have been if FDR had ordered the Navy to ambush the Japanese? We could have sunk the fleet headed into Hawaii and shortened the war by years. We'd have had a victory and still had the anger over the attempted attack.

The bottom line is that there was nothing to gain by allowing the Japanese to have a major victory.

Try using your head....What would the difference have been if FDR had ordered the Navy to ambush the Japanese? We could have sunk the fleet headed into Hawaii and shortened the war by years. We'd have had a victory and still had the anger over the attempted attack.

The bottom line is that there was nothing to gain by allowing the Japanese to have a major victory.

Click to expand...

As with Bush, a short, decisive war didn't serve his purposes. That's like saying Bush could have bombed the shit out of bin Laden's Afghanistan compound immediately and "had a victory and still had the anger over the attempted attack." That would not have ensured his re-election. He had a powerful reason (his father's failed administration) to avoid being an inconsequential (one-term) POTUS.

The "bottom line" is FDR faced a legacy of ignominy from two terms of economic failure, and had a powerful motivation to do something spectacular to get out from under it. War is the last refuge of failed Keynesians...